Features, Objects, and other Things: Ontological Distinctions in the Geographic Domain
Two hundred and sixty-three subjects each gave examples for one of five geographic categories: geographic features, geographic objects, geographic concepts, something geographic, and something that could be portrayed on a map. The frequencies of various responses were significantly different, indicating that the basic ontological terms feature, object, etc., are not interchangeable but carry different meanings when combined with adjectives indicating geographic or mappable. For all of the test phrases involving geographic, responses were predominantly natural features such as mountain, river, lake, ocean, hill. Artificial geographic features such as town and city were listed hardly at all for geographic categories, an outcome that contrasts sharply with the disciplinary self-understanding of academic geography. However, geographic artifacts and fiat objects, such as roads, cities, boundaries, countries, and states, were frequently listed by the subjects responding to the phrase something that could be portrayed on a map. In this paper, we present the results of these experiments in visual form, and provide interpretations and implications for further research.
KeywordsGeographic ontology geographic categories prototypes spatial cognition mereotopology human subjects testing spatialization self-organizing maps geographic information systems GIS
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Downs, R. M. and Stea, D., 1977. Maps in Minds: Reflections on Cognitive Mapping. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
- Kohonen, T., 1989. Self-Organization and Asscociative Memory. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Kohonen, T., 1995. Self-Organizing Maps, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Mark, D. M., 1993. Toward a Theoretical Framework for Geographic Entity Types. In Frank, A. U., and Campari, I, editors, Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences No. 716, pp. 270–283.Google Scholar
- Mark, D. M., and Freundschuh, S. M., 1995. Spatial Concepts and Cognitive Models for Geographic Information Use. In Nyerges, T. L., Mark, D. M., Laurini, R., and Egenhofer, M., editors. Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction for Geographic Information Systems, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 21–28.Google Scholar
- Mark, D. M., Smith, B., and Tversky, B., 1999. Ontology and Geographic Objects: An Empirical Study of Cognitive Categorization. In Freksa, C., and Mark, D. M., editors, Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 1661, 283–298.Google Scholar
- Montello, D. R., 1993. Scale and Multiple Psychologies of Space. In Frank, A. U., and Campari, I, editors, Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, etc.: Springer, pp. 312–321Google Scholar
- OED, 1989. Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition. http://dictionary.oed.com/
- Rosch, E., 1973. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. in: T. E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Smith, B., 1995. On Drawing Lines on a Map. In Andrew U. Frank and Werner Kuhn (eds.), Spatial Information Theory. A Theoretical Basis for GIS. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, etc.: Springer, 475–484.Google Scholar
- Smith, B., and Mark, D. M., 1998. Ontology and Geographic Kinds. Proceedings, Eighth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, 308–320, http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/ncgia/i21/SDH98.html.
- Smith, B., and Mark, D. M., 2001. Geographic Categories: An Ontological Investigation, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar